|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sineface
Joined: 27 Feb 2006
Location: C'est magnifique
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:27 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Yes I have a somewhat outlandish suggestion for the OP. It is fundamentally centered around switching of one's bl00dy computer. I've heard using less electricity (and producing a damn sight less hot air) does wonders for reducing climate change.
And um,
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Anyway, there's a logical fallacy called inconsistency. It's silly to argue against global warming, like SUV ownership, while you're keeping a pet, which itself adds to carbon emissions and provides nothing that human companionship can't provide. Unless you're into making friends who lick their ass and then lick your face. |
Unless I'm grossly mistaken and studied another kind of logical philosophy during my degree than you did, I'm rather certain that's incorrect. There is no such logical fallacy named Inconsistency. And whilst we're at it, though an argument may be "silly" , that makes it no less valid or sound. Thus, if you do so plan on attacking other's arguments based on these premises, I suggest basing your own on them first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's why I think laws regarding life be based on core values originally common to all major religions - rather than on speculative scientific estimations of what life is worth.
Actually, I accept that the human form is worth more than animal life, but that animals should be killed only when there is real necessity to do so.
If more people voluntarily adopted a vegetarian diet - for themselves and their pets - there would be much less killing (which is a good thing...)
Last edited by Rteacher on Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:53 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craven Moorehead
Joined: 14 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"defenceless animal" is emotive and subjective. When something is subjective, it means observers can have different interpretations of phenomena. Your "defenceless animal" is my "parasitic menace to my mental health" and noisy pet dogs are an extremely annoying societal and cultural circumstance one is forced to tolerate.
Well, not me.  [/quote]
Right. You are the biggest A-gamer on a board rife with them. Your apparent mental infirmity, sorry mental health, was clearly threatened by an animal easily taken by you and drowned at the olde swimming hole, according to your ridiculous story. Get a GD life, moron. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sineface wrote: |
Yes I have a somewhat outlandish suggestion for the OP. It is fundamentally centered around switching of one's bl00dy computer. I've heard using less electricity (and producing a damn sight less hot air) does wonders for reducing climate change.
And um,
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Anyway, there's a logical fallacy called inconsistency. It's silly to argue against global warming, like SUV ownership, while you're keeping a pet, which itself adds to carbon emissions and provides nothing that human companionship can't provide. Unless you're into making friends who lick their ass and then lick your face. |
Unless I'm grossly mistaken and studied another kind of logical philosophy during my degree than you did, I'm rather certain that's incorrect. There is no such logical fallacy named Inconsistency. And whilst we're at it, though an argument may be "silly" , that makes it no less valid or sound. Thus, if you do so plan on attacking other's arguments based on these premises, I suggest basing your own on them first. |
http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/incon.htm
Inconsistency
Definition:
The author asserts more than one proposition such that the propositions cannot all be true. In such a case, the propositions may be contradictories or they may be contraries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Yes, yes, MM2, you're right that humans are accorded rights where animals are not.
But how can you advocate killing pets and not advocate vegetarianism for society? Getting rid of cattle flatulence alone would do a whole lot more for the planet than killing peoples' loved animals. And peoples' loved animals do not have rights, but they have a special privilege accorded upon them, because they are loved by humans! |
I did advocate vegetarianism a couple pages back and touched upon it most recently. I bring up the constitutional angle because Bramble keeps making the false analogy of comparing killing humans to killing animals and then calling it a form of racism. I'm not suggesting we pass a law to kill all pets and turn them into fertilizer. See my address to the pet brigade for my point. |
It's not a "false analogy" and it's speciesism, not racism. And I'm not the one who brought up vegetarianism in this thread, although of course I'm for it. (That kind of goes without saying.)
What exactly was your purpose in starting this thread, Mindmetoo? Are you really against people adopting animal companions, or are you just one of those people who likes to promote apathy? Who are you arguing with, and is there any reason you timed this discussion to coincide with the fundraiser for homeless animals? |
Again read my note the pet brigade.
Fund raiser? You're just being paranoid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gingermongrel wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Indeed. Pet ownership is purely an act of selfishness and now it is having a devastating environmental impact. |
\
A "devastating" environmental impact"? According to whom? You?: Please share with us some independent research to back up this BS.
I'm try to recall whether the recent World Economic Forum in Davos held a climate change roundtable on the topic "Pet Ownership: Focus On This Devastating Contributor To Global Warming"
I don't think they did, but I could be wrong of course.... |
Anything that contributes to global warming and returns no efficiency to society by definition is contributing to the devastating environmental impact of CO2. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
knee-highs
Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Location: yes
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| am I the only one happy that this Jackass, mindmetoo, is leaving Korea? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| sineface wrote: |
Yes I have a somewhat outlandish suggestion for the OP. It is fundamentally centered around switching of one's bl00dy computer. I've heard using less electricity (and producing a damn sight less hot air) does wonders for reducing climate change.
And um,
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Anyway, there's a logical fallacy called inconsistency. It's silly to argue against global warming, like SUV ownership, while you're keeping a pet, which itself adds to carbon emissions and provides nothing that human companionship can't provide. Unless you're into making friends who lick their ass and then lick your face. |
Unless I'm grossly mistaken and studied another kind of logical philosophy during my degree than you did, I'm rather certain that's incorrect. There is no such logical fallacy named Inconsistency. And whilst we're at it, though an argument may be "silly" , that makes it no less valid or sound. Thus, if you do so plan on attacking other's arguments based on these premises, I suggest basing your own on them first. |
http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/incon.htm
Inconsistency
Definition:
The author asserts more than one proposition such that the propositions cannot all be true. In such a case, the propositions may be contradictories or they may be contraries. |
And that link illustrates what, exactly, that is relevant to this thread? MM2, you're losing your sense of logic ...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Bramble wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Yes, yes, MM2, you're right that humans are accorded rights where animals are not.
But how can you advocate killing pets and not advocate vegetarianism for society? Getting rid of cattle flatulence alone would do a whole lot more for the planet than killing peoples' loved animals. And peoples' loved animals do not have rights, but they have a special privilege accorded upon them, because they are loved by humans! |
I did advocate vegetarianism a couple pages back and touched upon it most recently. I bring up the constitutional angle because Bramble keeps making the false analogy of comparing killing humans to killing animals and then calling it a form of racism. I'm not suggesting we pass a law to kill all pets and turn them into fertilizer. See my address to the pet brigade for my point. |
It's not a "false analogy" and it's speciesism, not racism. And I'm not the one who brought up vegetarianism in this thread, although of course I'm for it. (That kind of goes without saying.)
What exactly was your purpose in starting this thread, Mindmetoo? Are you really against people adopting animal companions, or are you just one of those people who likes to promote apathy? Who are you arguing with, and is there any reason you timed this discussion to coincide with the fundraiser for homeless animals? |
Again read my note the pet brigade.
Fund raiser? You're just being paranoid. |
What is this pet brigade, and who are its members? Do any of your socks belong to it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Without knowing the mission of human life, it is ultimately pointless to talk about making society more efficient.
Some things may more efficiently degrade us to a more hellish condition - because they violate laws of nature ultimately directed by God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gingermongrel
Joined: 09 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| gingermongrel wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
Indeed. Pet ownership is purely an act of selfishness and now it is having a devastating environmental impact. |
\
A "devastating" environmental impact"? According to whom? You?: Please share with us some independent research to back up this BS.
I'm try to recall whether the recent World Economic Forum in Davos held a climate change roundtable on the topic "Pet Ownership: Focus On This Devastating Contributor To Global Warming"
I don't think they did, but I could be wrong of course.... |
Anything that contributes to global warming and returns no efficiency to society by definition is contributing to the devastating environmental impact of CO2. |
Sounds like a pretty good description of yourself actually....
Let's test this out:
My dog (Golden Retriever)
- lives with my grandparents
- costs roughly $5 a day to feed
- life expectancy: 15 years
- once saved my gran's life by waking my grandfather up when gran had a mild stroke
- the absolute light of my grandparents' life, in my gran's words she makes their lives "immeasurably" happier
- my grandparents take her to the nearby retirement home several times per week, they are told by many of the residents that this is the highlight of their week as some of them receive no human visitors for months on end
mindmetoo
- lives (unknown, but unlikely to be in a relationship)
- life expectancy: 75 years (unfortunately)
- costs roughly $25 per day to feed
- consumes 4-5x more food than a dog
- consumes (by use) 100x more scarce resources (fibres, metals, fossil fuels) than a dog
- inhales 4-5x more oxygen than a dog and exhales 4-5x more carbon dioxide
- freely admits that he personally expends zero significant effort to combat global warming, yet is happy to use his energy-hungry laptop to berate others for the miniscule contribution to C02 emissions caused by their pets (a classic whiner - do as I say, not as I do)
- contribution to society uncertain (beyond infecting his school students with appalling grammar) but judging by his demeanour, unlikley to be making the world a friendlier place by his presence
I would say that, if I had to choose, I would definitely be recommending that the latter be put to sleep rather than the former (all for the sake of global warming, you understand...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Anything that contributes to global warming and returns no efficiency to society by definition is contributing to the devastating environmental impact of CO2. |
Um, no. That's not the definition. If it contributes to climate change it doesn't matter what kid of "efficiency to society" (not sure what means, actually) it returns - it's still contributing to the environmental impact of CO2. Our species is just one among many on this planet, and our civilization is not a requirement for the planet to continue.
I'm planning on attending the fundraiser. Hope to see anyone who drop[s by for it.
Oh, also. Dogs are great. But one CAN go a bit overboard ...
Ultimate Creature Comforts
Pets Finding Increasingly Luxurious Gifts Under the Tree
By Ylan Q. Mui
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 22, 2007; Page D01
Just because 2-year-old Ruben is a dog doesn't mean he can't send Christmas cards.
The Puggle from McLean, a cross between a pug and a beagle, has already mailed seasons greetings to his canine friends and signed them with a paw print. His mother -- that is, owner Mary Partlow Lauttamus -- is knitting him a striped scarf that she plans to put under the tree, along with a new doggy-sized red sweater. He's already received a box of homemade treats from his walker and a pull toy from a Brittany spaniel. And Santa Claus will drop off the piece de resistance: a new plush toy hedgehog with a distinctive squeak.
"Ruben is really a part of our family," Lauttamus said. "He's a good sport when it comes to all these things. He puts up with us."
This holiday season, retailers are catering more than ever to the desire to pamper pets. Responding to what they see as the growing humanization of pets, retailers are finding that there's great appeal in the kinds of gifts for pets that were once the sole domain of their owners, such as Christmas stockings, cashmere sweaters and educational toys.
"It's no longer comfortable to reward these animals in pet terms," said Bob Vetere, president of the American Pet Products Manufacturers Association, a trade group. Now the thinking is, "My dog means so much to me that I have to give him something that means something to me," he said.
According to a recent APPMA survey, about 56 percent of dog owners and almost half of cat owners buy their pets Christmas gifts. Spending on pets is expected to reach $40.8 billion this year, almost double the amount spent in 1996. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rapacious Mr. Batstove
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: Central Areola
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 2:14 am Post subject: Re: How much does pet ownership contribute to global warming |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Rapacious Mr. Batstove wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
I don't know. But one could clearly reduce your carbon footprint if you didn't own a dog or cat. They eat a lot. They eat meat. Pet food needs to be trucked to stores. People purposely buy larger sized vehicles to accommodate their dogs. You need to take your pet to the vet and that's an unnecessary car trip.
So let me suggest if you want to do your part to fight global warming, don't get a pet. Every little bit helps. |
I agree. All blind citizens should volunteer their guide dogs to the nearest veterinarian for immediate termination. |
Clearly I was not talking about service dogs. Grow a brain, thanks. |
No that's right. You were talking about pets, and carbon footprints. Essentially you mean sustainability and living more efficiently with regards to carbon emissions and the environment. Which is why I mentioned guide-dogs and not sniffer dogs, or police dogs. You see, a guide-dog can be replaced with a stick, thus reducing environmental impact. Guide dogs are essentially a luxury item which can enable a blind person to live a more comfortable life. A guide dog is not essential to the health or survival of a blind person, rather they improve the chances of survival of a blind person by alerting them to physical danger.
Regular pets such as dogs and cats have physical benefits to their human owners such as the reduction in stress and cases of depression.
http://www.petsfortheelderly.org/articles.htm
| Quote: |
n 1980, a clinical research project at Brooklyn College, New York, studied heart-disease patients after their discharge from the hospital. Dr. Erika Friedmann, Ph.D., professor of health and nutrition sciences at the College, tracked each survivor, studying their medical histories, lifestyles, families, relationships - every documentable detail. Co-researcher Dr. Aaron Katcher, M.D., reported:
"The presence of a pet was the strongest social predictor of survival...not just for lonely or depressed people, but everyone - independent of marital status and access to social support from human beings." |
As a well informed individual, I'm sure you were aware of the positive physical benefits of pet ownership, but you have made it clear that any benefits to human owners of pets are outweighed by the negative impact on the environment by owning pets. Therefore your position on this issue favours living with environmental sustainability over the physical benefits to humans health pet ownership can provide.
Basically you contradicted yourself. Silly you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scarlet13
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Location: Changwon
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rD.NaTas wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| rD.NaTas wrote: |
| gingermongrel you izz muh hero , i have a feeling mindmetoo sits alone torturing small creatures slowly working up the guts to muder his abusive parents. |
And I have a feeling you've sold your body for money. Ain't libel fun? |
Sold! this stuff is free! |
Bought and paid for!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scarlet13
Joined: 10 Apr 2007
Location: Changwon
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 4:54 am Post subject: Re: How much does pet ownership contribute to global warming |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Scarlet13 wrote: |
I do not eat beef, and I think I am making good choices. These choices do not include murdering puppies. I don't think you are qualified to talk about logic. Your version of logic is rather twisted...and just plain creepy. |
And your stance on global warming is? |
I would love to have this conversation with someone a little more humane. As I think that you are either a) nuts or b) baiting us I choose to perpetuate this garbage. Have a nice animal free life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
